In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 10 2016 06:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I don't think that's a good example. I'd definitely rather have a great leader for 40 years than 6 trumps/clintons over 40 years.
As far as the average goes for US presidents, I'd say they fall well below "mediocre", though.
True but I don't find such an 'average' to be statistically meaningful. The samplesize is far to small for such a spreadout period of time.
You'd be taking presidents from the 60's and 70's from a completely different culture and world and applying them as if they will continue to be statistically relevant in our era where our democracy is clearly starting to fail in ways it wasn't in the 60's and 70's.
Basically, I think most people are settling on this election being an anomaly of horrible candidates. I've got a bad feeling this is the future of our elections in this era of unprecedented mass-information - a choice of lesser evils. Clearly not how democracy is meant to function.
On October 10 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: Trump will not get any statistically significant support from black voters. But of course the internet will find the rare gems that still support him.
Define statistically significant for me
more than 1%? 5%? 10%?
He will not get over 5%. I doubt he will get much 1%. Clinton will hold that demographic by an overwhelming number, like all democrats. This year is special because of Trumps overwhelming appeal to racist and people like David Duke.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
You're right rappers aren't running for president. And again you are correct to assert that music is art. These are very good points you have made.
It was a clearly a joke, sheesh
"Jokes are funny when they're shitposting the guy I'm voting against. But if you shitpost meme's against Clinton, you're reducing the quality of the thread and potentially subject to mod action".
Yea it was clearly a joke, meme-quality shitpost. In other words - a stupid point.
I'm confused why you felt the need to elaborate that it was a joke as if that somehow justifies the stupidity of it
On October 10 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: Trump will not get any statistically significant support from black voters. But of course the internet will find the rare gems that still support him.
Define statistically significant for me
more than 1%? 5%? 10%?
He will not get over 5%. I doubt he will get much 1%. Clinton will hold that demographic by an overwhelming number, like all democrats. This year is special because of Trumps overwhelming appeal to racist and people like David Duke.
He's polling at 7-8% with black voters, he'll do better than Romney for sure
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
You're right rappers aren't running for president. And again you are correct to assert that music is art. These are very good points you have made.
It was a clearly a joke, sheesh
"Jokes are funny when they're shitposting the guy I'm voting against. But if you shitpost meme's against Clinton, you're reducing the quality of the thread and potentially subject to mod action".
Yea it was clearly a joke, meme-quality shitpost. In other words - a stupid point.
I'm confused why you felt the need to elaborate that it was a joke as if that somehow justifies the stupidity of it
Thought it might save you some additional unnecessary ranting, but carry on
On October 10 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: Trump will not get any statistically significant support from black voters. But of course the internet will find the rare gems that still support him.
Define statistically significant for me
more than 1%? 5%? 10%?
He will not get over 5%. I doubt he will get much 1%. Clinton will hold that demographic by an overwhelming number, like all democrats. This year is special because of Trumps overwhelming appeal to racist and people like David Duke.
He's polling at 7-8% with black voters, he'll do better than Romney for sure
If there is actually video of him dropping the N word expect those numbers to drop in a hurry.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
You're right rappers aren't running for president. And again you are correct to assert that music is art. These are very good points you have made.
It was a clearly a joke, sheesh
"Jokes are funny when they're shitposting the guy I'm voting against. But if you shitpost meme's against Clinton, you're reducing the quality of the thread and potentially subject to mod action".
Yea it was clearly a joke, meme-quality shitpost. In other words - a stupid point.
I'm confused why you felt the need to elaborate that it was a joke as if that somehow justifies the stupidity of it
It was tongue in cheek but you absolutely do have to prove someone intentionally and maliciously said something and that thing tarnished the image of their integrity/morality. There are legal requirements for these things. Trump has done more to destroy his image in the last 18 months than a million of his worst enemies could ever have dreamt of.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
The right has this problem with understanding what libel and slander are. They've thrown those 2 words around so much in the last year and none of them actually understand what it means. You've continued that proud tradition on.
The tweet was also clearly a bit tongue in cheek.
edit - Oh okay I see where you are coming from
I'm sorry then let me rephrase my post for you.
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being victim of a case of libel if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
The right has this problem with understanding what libel and slander are. They've thrown those 2 words around so much in the last year and none of them actually understand what it means. You've continued that proud tradition on.
The tweet was also clearly a bit tongue in cheek.
I don't think I've ever accused someone in my life of libel. You seem to be getting confused in your attempts to insult me as a collective.
Without the actual tape footage this is meaningless. just another slander gossip piece.
You just said something was slander without understanding that slander has a very clear definition that hasn't even remotely been met. It's about the millionth time that I've seen someone on the right claim something is slander or libel this election cycle. Almost as if they don't actually know what those words mean they just toss them around. It's a pet peeve of mine so I make a mental note of it when I see it since it drives me insane and I've seen it coming up at an alarming rate the last year and a half.
Yeah, without the actual footage or audio its gossip for sure. Slander? Not so much. People need to stop throwing that word around.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
The right has this problem with understanding what libel and slander are. They've thrown those 2 words around so much in the last year and none of them actually understand what it means. You've continued that proud tradition on.
The tweet was also clearly a bit tongue in cheek.
edit - Oh okay I see where you are coming from
I'm sorry then let me rephrase my post for you.
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being victim of a case of libel if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
Lol, its cool I just get rustled when it comes up. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much. It was a tongue in cheek tweet being dumb I admit.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
The right has this problem with understanding what libel and slander are. They've thrown those 2 words around so much in the last year and none of them actually understand what it means. You've continued that proud tradition on.
The tweet was also clearly a bit tongue in cheek.
I don't think I've ever accused someone in my life of libel. You seem to be getting confused in your attempts to insult me as a collective.
Without the actual tape footage this is meaningless. just another slander gossip piece.
You just said something was slander without understanding that slander has a very clear definition that hasn't even remotely been met. It's about the millionth time that I've seen someone on the right claim something is slander or libel this election cycle. Almost as if they don't actually know what those words mean they just toss them around. It's a pet peeve of mine so I make a mental note of it when I see it since it drives me insane and I've seen it coming up at an alarming rate the last year and a half.
Yeah, without the actual footage or audio its gossip for sure. Slander? Not so much. People need to stop throwing that word around.
I was using it in the colloquial sense of the word.
I didn't know the legal distinction between the two terms. I looked it up and now I do. Not sure what that has to do with being 'on the right'.
Do you actually think there is a correlation between individuals in America who know the legal distinction between 'libel' and 'slander' and whether one is 'on the right or left' of the political spectrum? This just sounds like another stupid point to me. I'm of the opinion the vast majority of americans are unaware of the difference between the two.
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is in enforcing the distinction unless in a strict legal setting. It seems like for colloquial usage, everyone understands what is meant when someone accuses another of 'slander'.
I'll admit I was wrong though and didn't know the difference.
On October 10 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: Trump will not get any statistically significant support from black voters. But of course the internet will find the rare gems that still support him.
Define statistically significant for me
more than 1%? 5%? 10%?
He will not get over 5%. I doubt he will get much 1%. Clinton will hold that demographic by an overwhelming number, like all democrats. This year is special because of Trumps overwhelming appeal to racist and people like David Duke.
He's polling at 7-8% with black voters, he'll do better than Romney for sure
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
You're right rappers aren't running for president. And again you are correct to assert that music is art. These are very good points you have made.
It was a clearly a joke, sheesh
"Jokes are funny when they're shitposting the guy I'm voting against. But if you shitpost meme's against Clinton, you're reducing the quality of the thread and potentially subject to mod action".
Yea it was clearly a joke, meme-quality shitpost. In other words - a stupid point.
I'm confused why you felt the need to elaborate that it was a joke as if that somehow justifies the stupidity of it
Thought it might save you some additional unnecessary ranting, but carry on
On October 10 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: Trump will not get any statistically significant support from black voters. But of course the internet will find the rare gems that still support him.
Define statistically significant for me
more than 1%? 5%? 10%?
He will not get over 5%. I doubt he will get much 1%. Clinton will hold that demographic by an overwhelming number, like all democrats. This year is special because of Trumps overwhelming appeal to racist and people like David Duke.
He's polling at 7-8% with black voters, he'll do better than Romney for sure
On October 10 2016 06:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 10 2016 06:32 Dan HH wrote:
On October 10 2016 06:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 10 2016 06:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:
On October 10 2016 06:03 Doodsmack wrote:
On October 10 2016 06:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On October 10 2016 05:47 Logo wrote:
On October 10 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote]
Without the actual tape footage this is meaningless
Even with, does it matter? You can't get less than zero votes from a demographic.
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
You're right rappers aren't running for president. And again you are correct to assert that music is art. These are very good points you have made.
It was a clearly a joke, sheesh
"Jokes are funny when they're shitposting the guy I'm voting against. But if you shitpost meme's against Clinton, you're reducing the quality of the thread and potentially subject to mod action".
Yea it was clearly a joke, meme-quality shitpost. In other words - a stupid point.
I'm confused why you felt the need to elaborate that it was a joke as if that somehow justifies the stupidity of it
Thought it might save you some additional unnecessary ranting, but carry on
Romney in turn also outperformed his own polling.
What were Romney's poll numbers for black votes vs what he actually got on election day?
but anyways, to answer your question, Yes it does matter.
Ben Carson's point, I will admit, is an interesting one. The question then becomes what a US president should be like.
His point is so dumb. Rappers aren't running for president and music is art. There's no connection to be made there.
There are fucking people justifying sexual assault by saying if women didn't like to be grabbed by their vaginas why did 50 shades of grey sell so well?
Suggesting someone isn't capable of being slandered if they have a poor reputation. Now that's a dumb point.
The right has this problem with understanding what libel and slander are. They've thrown those 2 words around so much in the last year and none of them actually understand what it means. You've continued that proud tradition on.
The tweet was also clearly a bit tongue in cheek.
I don't think I've ever accused someone in my life of libel. You seem to be getting confused in your attempts to insult me as a collective.
Without the actual tape footage this is meaningless. just another slander gossip piece.
You just said something was slander without understanding that slander has a very clear definition that hasn't even remotely been met. It's about the millionth time that I've seen someone on the right claim something is slander or libel this election cycle. Almost as if they don't actually know what those words mean they just toss them around. It's a pet peeve of mine so I make a mental note of it when I see it since it drives me insane and I've seen it coming up at an alarming rate the last year and a half.
Yeah, without the actual footage or audio its gossip for sure. Slander? Not so much. People need to stop throwing that word around.
I was using it in the colloquial sense of the word.
I didn't know the legal distinction between the two terms. I looked it up and now I do. Not sure what that has to do with being 'on the right'.
Do you actually think there is a correlation between individuals in America who know the legal distinction between 'libel' and 'slander' and whether one is 'on the right or left' of the political spectrum? This just sounds like another stupid point to me. I'm of the opinion the vast majority of americans are unaware of the difference between the two.
Honestly I don't see what the big deal is in enforcing the distinction unless in a strict legal setting. It seems like for colloquial usage, everyone understands what is meant when someone accuses another of 'slander'.
I'll admit I was wrong though and didn't know the difference.
I've been over most of this already. It's a pet peeve, I'm a stickler on it. To me its a super loaded term and when people toss it around willy nilly its not taken seriously. The right throws it around because of Trump. It's slander/libel according to them to say he's racist, sexist, islamophobic, a fraud, etc, etc. Especially with the rise in stupidity this election with things like the_donald and the alt-right the terms are being thrown around like hot cakes. That's where the distinction comes from. I see people tossing it around like crazy in defense of Trump, I don't see it thrown around much at all for Hillary.
Yeah most people don't know the difference, its a personal annoyance.
On October 10 2016 03:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Guess that says something about the 'merits' of democracy when two shitty candidates are your choices.
Democracy isn't about having the best clothes. It's about doing the laundry regularly. It's about the theory that you never want a government that's too efficient, too professional, too powerful. That it is better to have 6 mediocre leaders over 40 years than one good one over the same time.
I don't think that's a good example. I'd definitely rather have a great leader for 40 years than 6 trumps/clintons over 40 years.
Two small problem with your line of reasoning:
1. "A great leader for 40 years" is called a dictator. There has never been anything great about dictatorship, therefore "a great leader for 40 years" is self contradictory.
2. Looks like half the country thinks one way the other half the other way. So who exactly gets to chose the great leader. In my book, Obama was a wonderful leader, so I assume you are ready to have him for 40 years, right? You'll find that fair and won't complain.
Damn... Looks like there is a reason why we invented democracy. Must have thought about that..
On October 10 2016 06:57 Mohdoo wrote: Just 3 more hours until we see a historic meltdown
I expect him to keep his cool, he is capable of following basic instructions after seeing the results of the alternative
He's had months to see the alternative but apparently he can't help it. The guy has the emotional maturity of an 9 years old. He must be incredibly upset and I also think he's gonna go berserk.
Even if he's able to not verbally go ballistic the man can't keep his rage hidden facially. He might not yell or drop any F bombs but you'll see his eyes shooting proverbial rage laser beams. Though i do expect him to come unhinged verbally at some point.
Being so emotionally driven isn't something you just turn off. It's ingrained in you. For instance people with ADHD have a very hard time keeping their emotions in check sometimes. It's a mental flaw in the human. To correct for it takes a lot of personal work over a long time. I don't see him suddenly having the mental fortitude to hold it together after 2 short weeks (and 70 years).
On October 10 2016 06:57 Mohdoo wrote: Just 3 more hours until we see a historic meltdown
I expect him to keep his cool, he is capable of following basic instructions after seeing the results of the alternative
I can see this happening because trump relies only on gut instinct. He has to actually get burned by touching the stove (first debate) to realize what does and doesn't work. It requires him to acknowledge deep down that he lost the first debate though, so I'm not even sure of that.
On October 10 2016 06:57 Mohdoo wrote: Just 3 more hours until we see a historic meltdown
I expect him to keep his cool, he is capable of following basic instructions after seeing the results of the alternative
He's had months to see the alternative but apparently he can't help it. The guy has the emotional maturity of an 9 years old. He must be incredibly upset and I also think he's gonna go berserk.
He was kept on a short leash for solid month after the Khan debacle, but eventually broke free. I'm assume that's what his staff will try now as well, though there's the small possibility that he will go on the attack and yell about Bill
EPT
